Rep. Walsh denies child support claim, says ex-wife trying to 'exploit' his position

Katherine SkibaTribune reporter

WASHINGTON — Rejecting his ex-wife’s claim that he owes more than $100,000 in child support, U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh contends that he and she informally modified their support agreement for five years and that she is now trying to “exploit” his position as a new member of Congress.

In his court filings Tuesday, the McHenry Republican said that he and Laura Walsh agreed to informal modifications of child support — both upward and downward — from 2005 to 2010 because they were both “tired of court appearances” and neither of them “had the financial and emotional wherewithal to continue the battle.”

But the battle has continued.

Laura Walsh, who lives in the Chicago area, said in Cook County Circuit Court late last year that he owes her more than $117,000 in unpaid child support and interest and nearly $10,000 for the children’s expenses.

In his new filings, Walsh says his ex-wife is demanding money “not rightfully due her” and that she is seeking to take advantage of his election to the U.S. House last November.

The couple divorced in 2004 after 17 years of marriage. Their children now are aged 24, 20 and 17.

The lawmaker said he’s now paying $2,134 a month in child support; his ex-wife’s lawyer said that money is being withheld from his government paycheck as support for the teen.

Joe Walsh issued a press release Wednesday saying he had been a “loving, supportive, involved dad from the beginning.”

He noted that for several months in 2009 and 2010 his youngest child lived with him while his ex-wife, who works for Eli Lilly & Co., worked during the week in Indianapolis, where the firm is based.

Joe Walsh said he had been “pummeled” by the media and dubbed a “deadbeat dad” because of Laura Walsh’s allegations.

Yet their children have “experienced an unabated life of private instruction, private schools, dance classes, private sports instruction and European trips,” he said.

Walsh said a trust fund established by his grandparents paid most of the cost of his oldest son’s private-college expenses; he said he paid the rest and did not seek money from his ex.

He also said Laura Walsh had enjoyed a six-figure income while his fluctuated: about $86,0000 in 2005; $92,000 in 2006; $80,000 in 2007; $11,000 in 2008; $39,000 in 2009; and $61,0000 in 2010.

Joe Walsh said money loaned to his political campaign “did not primarily come” from his income and that his new wife, whom he married in 2006, chipped in some assets.

He also said that while his family has given him some money as gifts and paid for family vacations, he and his new wife “have continuously budgeted and reduced their living expenses when necessary.” He said he does not have a savings or investment account.

Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, responded to the claim that she was trying to “exploit” the congressman’s position, noting that their side had said nothing to the media about the case between December, when it was filed, and July, when reporters learned of it.

“How is that exploiting?” asked Coladarci, who charged that Joe Walsh “ran for Congress knowing full well all the skeletons he has rattling around.”

The attorneys for the Walshes are scheduled to go before a judge Friday, according to Coladarci.

Janet Boyle, who represents Joe Walsh, could not be reached for comment.